JUDGMENT : 1. The legal representatives of the defendant in O.S.No. 18/2004 of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thalassery are the petitioners before this Court. The suit was filed for a decree of specific performance of sale agreement and in the alternative, for the return of the advance amount with interest and costs from the defendant. Originally, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2009. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, R.F.A.No. 773/2009 was filed by the plaintiffs. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 21.11.2016, this Court set aside the dismissal of the suit and remanded the matter back for consideration by the trial court with the plaintiff's liberty to amend the plaint appropriately. A liberty was also granted to the plaintiff to implead additional parties if found necessary for a complete and effective adjudication. This was granted, especially in the light of the specific assertion of the defendants by pleading discharge of the amount borrowed by him from the plaintiff. After the remand of the suit by Ext.P1 judgment, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, the amendment was granted and additional pleadings were incorporated after paragraph 5(a) of the plaint. 2. Later, the case was finally heard on 01.11.2017 and posted for judgment on 08.11.2017. After the parties had completed their arguments, the plaintiffs seem to have realized the lacuna in the case projected before the Court and decided to file an application for amendment as I.A. No. 1556/2017. The application for re-opening of the evidence was also made as evident from Ext.P2. The petitioners/defendants objected to the claim of the plaintiffs by raising a plea that the amendment now sought for is against the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to them, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to change the nature of the suit by amending the original cause of action and the reason for delay in making the application is not explained by the plaintiffs. However, the Additional Subordinate Court, Thalassery by order dated 15.11.2017 granted the amendment and allowed the application on condition that the petitioners shall pay Rs.500/-as costs to the respondents/defendants on or before the next hearing date and failing which applications shall stand dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have invoked the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have invoked the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Adv. Sri.George Mathews and Adv.Sri.K.P.Hareendran, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 4. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 5. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as follows: “Order VI - PLEADINGS GENERALLY XXX XXX XXX 17. Amendment of pleadings: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: PROVIDED that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” It may be noticed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was amended by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2002. Going by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, before allowing an application for amendment after the commencement of the trial, the trial court should have entered a finding that, even after due diligence, such amendment could not be made by the party. Question before this Court is whether the trial court has discharged its obligation and whether such amendment is permissible under law. 6. It is pertinent to note that, as per Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench, an opportunity was granted to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint and implead the parties, if found necessary for a complete and effective adjudication. 7. It is admitted across the Bar, in terms of such liberty granted by the Division Bench, an application for amendment was filed and was allowed by the trial court. However, no parties through whom the defendants claimed to have discharged the amount has been impleaded. Of course, this Court is not called upon to decide the validity of such non-impleadment. However, only for the completion of the facts, the same is being narrated. 8. However, no parties through whom the defendants claimed to have discharged the amount has been impleaded. Of course, this Court is not called upon to decide the validity of such non-impleadment. However, only for the completion of the facts, the same is being narrated. 8. The amendment as sought for was granted and carried out in the plaint and trial was completed and the suit was reserved for judgment on 01.11.2017. The suit was posted for judgment on 08.11.2017. In the meantime, the plaintiffs, having realized the mistake committed by them and to cover up the lacuna that had occurred due to the insufficiency of pleadings in the earlier amendment filed Ext.P3 application, I.A.No. 1556/2017, for amendment of the plaint once again. 9. A perusal of Ext.P3 application for amendment reveals that the specific reason stated by the plaintiff is that he failed to seek amendment of the plaint to the extent where the defendants had raised a plea of limitation. Accordingly, a new date with regard to cause of action was sought to be incorporated. 10. By the order impugned in this original petition the said amendment was allowed. As discussed above, the power of the trial court to grant an amendment after the commencement of the trial is governed by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The trial court should necessarily enter into a finding that the said application for amendment, though belated, was maintainable since even after the exercise of due diligence, the parties were not able to prefer the said application in time. A reading of Ext.P6 order shows that no such finding was entered by the trial court in this regard. 11. In so far as the power of the courts to allow amendment of the plaint is concerned, the same has been expounded by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. The judicial precedents on this point though would be numerous in number, the pertinent issue on facts is whether the amendment could have been allowed by the trial court after the case was reserved for order/judgment. 12. In State of M.P. Vs. Union of India, (2011) 12 SCC 268 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of amendment after commencement of trial. 12. In State of M.P. Vs. Union of India, (2011) 12 SCC 268 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of amendment after commencement of trial. It was held by the Supreme Court that after commencement of trial if the amendment is sought, certainly the party should establish that even after due diligence the amendment could not be sought for. 13. In Abdul Rehman Vs Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341 , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC once again. It was held that if by allowing the amendment the opposite party's rights are affected and prejudice is caused then the amendment cannot be allowed. 14. In J. Samuel Vs. Gattu Mahe, (2012) 2 SCC 300 , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the word “due diligence” occurring in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows: “19. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term “due diligence” is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. 20. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and it is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term “due diligence” determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit.” 15. Applying the above principles to the facts, it becomes evident that after the 1st application for amendment was allowed, the parties went to trial and advanced their oral arguments. Thereafter the case was reserved for judgment on 1.11.2017. The date for pronouncing the judgment was fixed on 8.11.2017. Therefore, the amendment petition filed on 3.11.2017 could only be viewed as a cover up for the lacuna that happened in the pleadings of the plaintiffs when the parties completed the trial and hearing of the suit. Thereafter the case was reserved for judgment on 1.11.2017. The date for pronouncing the judgment was fixed on 8.11.2017. Therefore, the amendment petition filed on 3.11.2017 could only be viewed as a cover up for the lacuna that happened in the pleadings of the plaintiffs when the parties completed the trial and hearing of the suit. This crucial aspect has been completely lose sighted of by the trial court while granting amendment as per Ext.P6 order. The trial court by allowing the amendment failed miserably to appreciate the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Even assuming for argument sake that the trial court should be liberal in allowing amendment, such principles cannot be stretched to the extent of permitting the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings after the judgment was reserved in the suit. 16. Therefore, the trial court clearly erred in allowing the application for amendment which was filed after the case was reserved for judgment. In the result, this Court finds that Ext.P6 order cannot be sustained and thus calls for interference by the exercise of the powers conferred by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. Accordingly, the Original Petition stands allowed. Ext.P6 order is thus set aside. The trial court is directed to pass orders on O.S. No. 18/2004 after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional Subordinate Court, Thalasseri on 14.08.2024. The trial court shall fix a date for hearing, which is convenient to both the parties and endeavor to complete the proceedings expeditiously considering the fact that suit is of the year 2004. 18. The Original Petition is ordered accordingly.